In an excellent piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Scott Atlas of Stanford University highlights…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Want to Address Drug Costs? Avoid Price Controls, Eliminate PBMs and Don't Weaken Patents

In an excellent piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Scott Atlas of Stanford University highlights how Americans enjoy far greater access to new lifesaving drugs than patients in Europe and elsewhere, and how the movement to impose government price controls would only restrict access to new drugs and degrade Americans' health outcomes, as we at CFIF have been emphasizing:

America has superior treatment results for virtually all serious diseases reliant on drug treatment, including cancer, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and diabetes.  Price controls would jeopardize that advantage...

Pegging drug prices to those of foreign countries, as both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have proposed, would ultimately lead to the same consequences Europeans endure - reduced access…[more]

February 14, 2019 • 05:20 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
The Medicare-for-All Hoax Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, September 12 2018
Republicans who failed miserably to communicate a case for repealing and replacing Obamacare cannot make that mistake again. They need to warn voters about the dangers of single-payer health care.

President Barack Obama made a stunning policy shift on Friday, endorsing "Medicare-for-all"  a single-payer health system  for the nation. Most Democrats contending for the 2020 presidential nomination, and many Dems vying for Congressional seats this fall, are backing it, too.

But beware. They're pulling a bait-and-switch. The phrase "Medicare-for-all" sounds as American as apple pie. A new Reuters poll shows 70 percent of Americans respond to it favorably. That's because the public isn't getting the truth about what it means. The actual plan these Democrats are pushing doesn't look anything like Medicare. They're slapping the Medicare label on what would be dangerously inadequate health care.

For starters, it would rip away private health coverage from half of all Americans, including the 157 million who get their insurance the old-fashioned way  earning it through a job. Conveniently, Democrats are forgetting to tell you that private insurance would be banned under their scheme; employers would be barred from covering workers or their families. Union members and executives who bargained for gold-plated private plans would lose them and have to settle for the same one-size-fits-all public coverage as people who refuse to work at all. Even immigrants here illegally would get the same benefits. What's the point of working?

"Medicare-for-all" is no longer a fringe proposal favored by the extreme left. It's gaining steam. Republicans who failed miserably to communicate a case for repealing and replacing Obamacare cannot make that mistake again. They need to warn voters about the dangers of single-payer health care.

Under "Medicare-for-all"  the legislation introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders  Americans would be automatically enrolled in the public program. Kids would be enrolled at birth.

The new scheme would guarantee hospital care, doctors' visits, even dental, vision and long-term care, all provided by Uncle Sam. But that's only until the money runs out. Sanders' bill imposes hard-and-fast dollar caps on how much health care the country can consume yearly. That means limiting mammograms, hip replacements and other procedures. Sanders' bill creates new regional health authorities to curb "overutilization" of care.

Seniors and baby boomers are big losers under "Medicare-for-all." Whenever boomers have to vie with younger people for health resources, they get pushed to the back of the line. In the United Kingdom's single-payer system, boomers are turned away for hip replacements. They're told they have fewer years of life ahead to benefit from costly medical procedures. British women are livid because many are being refused breast reconstruction after lumpectomies and mastectomies.

At least in Britain, people are free to buy private insurance and go outside the government system for care. But that's not true under "Medicare-for-all." You'd be trapped.

Dems backing Sanders' bill point to Medicare's cost efficiencies and say they can be expanded to the whole population. That's ridiculous. Medicare pays only about 88 cents for every dollar of care, shortchanging hospitals and doctors. These providers take the payments because they can shift the unmet costs on their patients with private insurance. But if everyone is on "Medicare-for-all," no cost-shifting is possible. The only alternative is lowering the quality of care  longer waits, limited access to technology.

Single-payer advocates don't deny it. Stanford economist Victor Fuchs argues in the Journal of the American Medical Association that curbing the use of mammograms, new drugs and diagnostic technologies would make single-payer affordable. In short, go low-tech. But millions of American women have survived breast cancer thanks to high-tech screening and new gene-based therapies. Low-tech medicine would be a death sentence.

The United Kingdom's rock bottom survival rates for breast, lung, ovarian and pancreatic cancer are the result of that low-tech approach. British newspapers are declaring, "Cancer shame as UK survival rates lag behind the rest of the world."

Is that what we want in America?


Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and a former lieutenant governor of New York State. 
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

 

Question of the Week   
How many votes need to be cast in the affirmative in order to expel a member of Congress from either Chamber?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Amazon does not need New York City. There are many advantages to operating in a city such as New York, which offers experiences and opportunities that well-paid tech-company executives are not going to find in such business-friendly alternatives as Houston or Las Vegas. But Amazon has decided that these are not worth the price of admission, which in this case would be subjecting itself to a political…[more]
 
 
—Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
— Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Given the hard-left turn of Democratic Party leaders and many rank-and-file elected officials, how do you think Democrats will fare in 2020 elections?